[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090128131715.D45E.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 13:34:20 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mikew@...gle.com,
rientjes@...gle.com, rohitseth@...gle.com, hugh@...itas.com,
a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, hpa@...or.com, edwintorok@...il.com,
lee.schermerhorn@...com, npiggin@...e.de
Subject: Re: [RFC v2][PATCH]page_fault retry with NOPAGE_RETRY
>
> * Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> > I think that a good way to present this is as a preparatory patch:
> > "convert the fourth argument to handle_mm_fault() from a boolean to a
> > flags word". That would be a simple do-nothing patch which affects all
> > architectures and which ideally would break the build at any unconverted
> > code sites. (Change the argument order?)
>
> why not do what i suggested: refactor do_page_fault() into a platform
> specific / kernel-internal faults and into a generic-user-pte function.
> That alone would increase readability i suspect.
>
> Then the 'retry' is multiple calls from handle_pte_fault().
>
> Or something like that.
>
> It looks wrong to me to pass another flag through this hot codepath, just
> to express a property that the _highlevel_ code is interested in.
I like this idea :)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists